Here is what liberals, socialist, and communist need to understand

Do you own it if it's stolen property?

This assumes it is stolen property but because you have possession and the rightful owner is unable to support their claim of ownership in a court that the the court would award you ownership.

 

this doesn't make any sense

 

our military didn't prevent china from doing anything.

 

Government by the people comes at great expense and the funding of the government is the responsibility of the people that control the government either directly or by being represented by those they choose.

The government isn't stealing anything if the tax imposed to fund government is proportionate to the estate for all members of society. Of note only a positive estate (assets that exceed liability or income that exceeds the fundamental cost of living for all that live in the society) can result in a positive tax.

The division of income into "earned income" and "unearned income" where earned income is taxed at twice the tax rate of unearned income is a violation of the fundamental right of property of the person with unearned income.

You don't have to be a Republican to advocate for tax laws that violate the Right of Property but Republicans always advocate for tax laws that violate the Right of Property.

 

Your assertion is that defense spending has not been "general welfare" because it only benefits a subset at the expense of the rest. I say welfare entitlement spending is not "general welfare" for the exact same reason.

 

neither of those countries are capable now, have ever been capable, or ever will be capable of attacking the US. And what Obama failure?

 

Of course not. Stealing someone else's property doesn't make you the owner. If you steal someone's car, you don't become the owner. The original owner remains as the legal owner of the car.

It would depend upon the details of the case.

 

I was using your own argument against you. If you feel welfare entitlements aren't "general welfare" then neither is defense spending, which you claimed WAS part of general welfare.

 

"Right of property"? Can you explain what you mean by that?

I would think that all tax laws require the taking of people's property.

 

It doesn't. Wealth increases macroeconomically.

 

Like gravity right? Only a theory?

 

Until all the liens, sexual assault, and pedophilia claims come to light and clear the courts, innit.

 

I have a degree in economics. If you think printing money (IE increasing the money supply) "creates wealth" you are an idiot.

 

Please explain.

 

The difference is this: We, as a country, could not exist were it not for spending on the general defense. EVERYONE in this country benefits from our strong national defense. Further, national defense is the only Constitutionally mandatory function of the national government.

The Constitution requires the federal government to protect the nation. Article Four, Section Four states that the “United States shall guarantee to every State a republican form of government and shall protect each of them against invasion.” In other words, even if the federal government chose to exercise no other power, it must, under the Constitution, provide for the common defense.

And that is an example of the very definition of "general welfare".

That is not to say that our asshats in office have not abused the system for personal gain, but regardless, defense spending is for the "general welfare" because it is a constitutional mandate and we could not exist as a nation without it.

 

Things that effect the entire economy are beyond the reach of inidivdual actors except in cases where those actors wield economic power equivalent to nationstates or the largest corporations. Microeconomic transactions do not effect the entire economy except in aggregates of billions of transactions.

 

Hawaii isn't in range of current N.K. missile capabilities? Iran becoming a nuclear state doesn't pose a threat either? Obama rescinding Iranian sanctions was a triumph? There's nothing I've failed to accurately represent in my post. I can provide the wikipedia link that identifies Iran as the worlds foremost sponsor of terrorism ... if that's where you're headed, don't bother.

 

Patriotism demands honestly acknowledging folks' dependence upon and indebtedness to society for the regulation, systems, infrastructure, and safeguards that they advantage in permitting them to accrue wealth.

Beyond the commonweal, government's role is protect and defend the lives and possessions of those whom it represents. Lives are equal as an asset and cannot be assigned relative value, but personal wealth differs enormously and is quantifiable. Extremely wealthy individuals are far more needy in terms of government protection because they have much more that needs protection, and are morally responsible for reimbursing society accordingly.

 

As they say in court... facts, not in evidence.. Nice ad hominem though.

 

Translation. Ungrateful ingrates not recognizing the value of the elite creating legislative enclaves of privilege in the hopes that the rest of society won't notice.... yes, this truly is what the democratic party is all about.

Extremely wealthy folks aren't dependent on government any more than the average citizen is. There is no more, or less obligation of society to meet the needs and provide protection to any segment of society. The insertion of the concept of noblese oblige ended with serfdom. We aren't a society of disparate social privilege. We all enjoy the same rights, and obligations irrespective on how NB wishes it weren't so.

 

I posted a link which supports my point.

 

Translation: Kowtow before the privileged elite, and flail the pom poms for the ongoing transference and concentration of the nation's wealth into the few bottomless pockets.

It is undeniable that the wealthiest Americans possess far, far more for the government to protect.

In America today wealth is distributed more unequally than in any industrial country. The top 1 percent of our population owns half the country's wealth. As for income, the bottom 20 percent take home a decreasing share and the top 20 percent take home an ever increasing portion of the total.

The gross disparity and unfairness explains Trump's having lied about coming clean with his tax returns.

 

Global net value has increased by thousands of percent since the 1880s. Explain.

 

Chart won't render... deleted.

 

Technological growth and population growth.